Here is the link to the google doc the topic committee will be working on in the coming weeks.
If you have feedback or comments about topics as this process moves forward, I ask that you post them here on Net-Benefits.

Here’s what’s on our plate: By February 22nd we need to pick 3 resolutions from each controversy area to put on Net-benefits so the membership can add clarification/suggestions for wording changes for 48 hours. By February 26th, we need to have the...

for BioEngineering
i think changing the wording of the resolutions to research and/or development will solve most of the problems from the discussion posted. The affs are able to garner flexibility but not so much that they are to be unpredictable it also cleans up much of the solvency debate allowing them to use pre-existing programs that may be underfunded, or currently in the research part of the process. Further it also allows for deployment of the technology, which is something that falls outside of the previous wording of the topics.

for Space
i have a similar qualm with resolutions 3,4 and 5. As written all of these would require you to increase research and also the implementation of the program. This means that any pre-existing program that is available would either have to be researched further before being developed and implemented and causes a mess with the process and an unneeded step.
With the vast litany of negative ground already available for this topic area i would propose changing those 3 to research and/or development also giving the aff the choice to be both or just one or the other, gives the same level of research and education just will (finger crossed) hopefully increase the quality of debate surrounding these resolutions.

@kstarkey: Adding some comments here – apologies if there’s any overlap with the other comments in the doc.

Agriculture

Agree with adding “its” if the current resolution wording is largely kept; agree with “substantially reduce” rather than “eliminate” to avoid excessive PIC ground; agree the Farm Bill is a bad topic given the current political climate; agree that FCIC is a good topic/revision

I think it’s weird that “farms” is only in the tobacco topic – I don’t think there’s necessarily a meaningful difference between ending subsidies for “tobacco” vs “tobacco farms” but it nevertheless seems the topics should be consistent (if nothing else, any debate about what constitutes a “farm” or a “subsidy for a farm” as opposed to a crop is certain to be asinine).

I think corn, sugar, and crop insurance are the best topics. I would also change “sugar beets” to just “sugar” or “sugar production” – that grants access to larger geopolitical debates (like the WTO/Brazil sugar dispute) as well as larger general inroads to the US sugar industry; and I’m not aware of any unique benefit to discussing sugar beets and not sugar cane.

Bioengineering

Strong +1 for “development and implementation” rather than “research” wording. The crux of it for me is that advantage solvency mechanisms tend to require actual implementation (we’ve been doing research for decades, that’s obviously necessary but not sufficient to address climate change/etc) while negative disads often only need perceptual links (easier to win the IL that the act of Trump suddenly approving funding for X science thing would trip the politics link, freak out energy companies, etc).

Space exploration

I don’t like the NASA budget topic as written – the affirmative could implement a permanent budget for NASA identical to its current budget and be topical, minimizing disad ground while claiming perception based advantages like science diplomacy. Conversely, in real life there’s not really such thing as a “permanent budget” absent a Constitutional amendment – yes, fiat is durable but it seems odd to force the aff to do something that more or less doesn’t exist in the actual budgetary process. (Topic is also missing “the” in the phrase “for National Aeronautics and Space Administration”.)

Most of the other topics should have “significantly” or “substantially” added to prevent minuscule affs.

I think SLS, debris, and military satellites are the best topics here. I think space solar and asteroid mining are overly susceptible to the “do it on the ground” CP, and rely on fairly speculative technologies that are years/decades from reality.

Naval Presence

I would suggest changing the wording of each of these to “military naval presence”. I understand that the present wording intentionally expands aff flex but I would argue it does so too much – especially since the actor is US not USFG; this would arguably justify having random US companies do economically beneficial but unpredictable things such as cargo shipping (this would certainly be a good and perhaps neg-favored T debate but I don’t see a reason to open the door to it). Military naval presence still allows aff flex (heg affs, military science/environmental affs) while providing a modicum of predictability. Barring this change, I would at least advocate for changing US to USFG.

Black Sea – I think new Russia debates are both interesting and very meaningful in the context of a Trump presidency

Water

I agree there should only be one river topic. I think the Irtysh River topic is the better of the two. There are larger geopolitical and international questions regarding the UN challenging China as the topic demands, while the Hari-Rud river topic seems much more regional (and debate-scale impact scenarios more speculative).

I think the Syria topic is fairly sound – it has geopolitical implications for the international community as well as the Middle East, on top of the general HR impacts. I am somewhat concerned about aff/neg bias though; it seems the aff only gets relatively small HR advantages and relatively vague UN cred advantages, while the neg gets Syria disads, ISIS disads, Russia disads, and generally solid uniqueness given that the Syrian government has already retaken most contested territory (so arguably stable water supplies are coming in the status quo anyway).

I pretty much exactly echo Matt’s concerns about the Haiti topic.

I think the Hormuz topic is the best third topic. I think the term Rob may be searching for is “right of transit passage” which is referenced in LOST (I also think this is a preferable phrasing instead of “zone of free passage” since there is a literature base to establish its meaning and limits.) I would consider rewording the topic to be a bit more precise in general: “The United Nations should establish and enforce the right of transit passage in the Strait of Hormuz.”

I also agree with Matt’s concerns on the 64/292 topic, and I am unsure of the negative ground on the additional water filtration topic.

I would suggest changing the wording of each of these to “military naval presence”. I understand that the present wording intentionally expands aff flex but I would argue it does so too much – especially since the actor is US not USFG; this would arguably justify having random US companies do economically beneficial but unpredictable things such as cargo shipping (this would certainly be a good and perhaps neg-favored T debate but I don’t see a reason to open the door to it). Military naval presence still allows aff flex (heg affs, military science/environmental affs) while providing a modicum of predictability. Barring this change, I would at least advocate for changing US to USFG.

Zach, I understand your desire to limit the affirmative to only being able to deploy things that are associated with the military, and I have no qualms with making the actor “USFG” as opposed to “US.” My understanding of the term “naval,” however, is that excludes any civilian ships and only refers to ships associated with the armed forces, meaning any affirmative who uses a private company as the actor would be decidedly untopical. I can’t find any use of the term “naval” that refers to anything other than ships/personnel under the purview of a particular country’s navy.

My understanding of the term “naval,” however, is that excludes any civilian ships and only refers to ships associated with the armed forces, meaning any affirmative who uses a private company as the actor would be decidedly untopical.

Ah, that’s a good point. I was just thinking of “naval” as generally “having to do with the ocean” but upon further reading I think you’re definitely correct.